[113910] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF,
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Thu Apr 23 10:37:21 2009
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@creative.net.au>
In-Reply-To: <20090423121707.GQ11570@skywalker.creative.net.au>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:36:24 +0200
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 23 apr 2009, at 14:17, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Methinks its time a large cabal of network operators should represent
> at IETF and make their opinions heard as a collective group.
> That would be how change is brought about in a participative
> organisation,
> no? :)
Why don't you start by simpling stating what you want to have happen?
So far I've seen a number of messages complaining about the IETF (btw,
if you like complaining about the IETF, go to the meetings, there is
significant time set aside for that there) but not a single technical
request, remark or observation.
The IETF works by rough consensus. That means if people disagree,
nothing much happens. That is annoying. But a lot of good work gets
done when people agree, and a lot of the time good technical arguments
help.
Like I said, the IETF really wants input from operators. Why not start
by giving some?
